Another extraordinary statement?

[Steve Ulman]

In post #3 in the Replying to NASA, how many conspiritors would it have taken? thread, Jack made the following statement regarding the Apollo photographic record:

...MOST OF THE FAKED PHOTOS WERE NOT RELEASED TILL 30 YEARS LATER...

Jack-

This is an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?

[Jack White]

Maybe I shouldn't be trying to answer for Jack , and I 'm sure he will have his own explanation for your question , but one of the web sites which I find most interesting on the subject of faking Apollo photos in the 1990's through photoshopping for nasa's use on the internet is geocities .

Here is a link to this site which explains in some detail how and even possibly who might have photoshopped photos at nasa's request for the internet .... Of course Michael Tuttle has only admitted to "altering" photos for nasa and not actually inventing them , but the founders of this site seem to believe otherwise .

This site shows many anomalous Apollo photos and also shows how easy it is to duplicate a 'moon' photo using various techniques , including photoshop .

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

Mr. Tuttle's claim is very intriguing. I wish there was

some way to question him further.

I believe PhotoShopping has been used extensively on

faking the photos. His claim seems fairly credible.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Nice one - except for that little niggling fact that the Apollo images have been available since the begining of the 1970s, and Photoshop did not exist then. There was no such thing as CGI, etc.

Still, never let the facts stand in the way of a good yarn, eh?

[Craig Lamson]

Nice one - except for that little niggling fact that the Apollo images have been available since the begining of the 1970s, and Photoshop did not exist then. There was no such thing as CGI, etc.

Still, never let the facts stand in the way of a good yarn, eh?

I suggest you do a bit of background work on this great evidence on Tuttle Duane is promoting...its almost too funny for words! Simply amazing people will believe stuff like this and yet NASA's documentation is worthless. And lets not forget how easy it is ti dismiss science....

Edited November 10, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Steve Ulman]

If you think it's so funny then maybe you need to do a little homework yourself there Mr. Lamson .

And yes , nasa's documentation IS worthless ... As for science , it's pretty much overrated also , considering it changes constantly ... You know the old saying ... What is science fiction today , is scientific fact tomorrow ... and vice versa of course !

So much for having an inteligent conversation about the science and engineering of Apollo!

Have a nice day.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Craig Lamson]

If you think it's so funny then maybe you need to do a little homework yourself there Mr. Lamson .

And yes , nasa's documentation IS worthless ... As for science , it's pretty much overrated also , considering it changes constantly ... You know the old saying ... What is science fiction today , is scientific fact tomorrow ... and vice versa of course !

Well Duane I have done the "homework". I know all about the "evidence" you have concering Mr. Tuttle. That you find it of value speaks volumes as does your very interesting statement about science.

Thanks you so much for both.